c770a965   
   XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights,   
   talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: can.politics   
   From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net   
      
   "wy"  wrote in message   
   news:1021e54e-c323-4fba-9de0-a6ca91808ed9@y2g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...   
   > On 18 Apr, 02:36, "Scout"    
   > wrote:   
   >> "wy"  wrote in message   
   >>   
   >> news:5467b72e-4c57-480c-ac82-0cca92664979@h1g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> > On 18 Apr, 00:34, "Scout"    
   >> > wrote:   
   >> >> "wy"  wrote in message   
   >>   
   >> >>news:bbd6ebe0-24ef-40d5-b0c6-cf1ae0b930fb@a14g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...   
   >>   
   >> >> > On 17 Apr, 22:09, "Scout"   
   >> >> >    
   >> >> > wrote:   
   >> >> >> "wy"  wrote in message   
   >>   
   >> >> >>news:3cf4b6d8-cd9d-4ee6-be02-f7dd6cfb60f6@x14g2000vba.go   
   glegroups.com...   
   >>   
   >> >> >> > On 17 Apr, 20:21, "Scout"   
   >> >> >> >    
   >> >> >> > wrote:   
   >> >> >> >> "wy"  wrote in message   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >>news:bf21673f-27c1-4bcd-8076-a9a063ce05ae@y14g2000vbk   
   googlegroups.com...   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >> > On 16 Apr, 22:37, "Scout"   
   >> >> >> >> >    
   >> >> >> >> > wrote:   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >> >> >> If you don't wish to discuss it and consider the other   
   >> >> >> >> >> >> side   
   >> >> >> >> >> >> of   
   >> >> >> >> >> >> the   
   >> >> >> >> >> >> argument, that is your choice.  However, the Supreme Court   
   >> >> >> >> >> >> has   
   >> >> >> >> >> >> ruled,   
   >> >> >> >> >> >> and, IMHO, gotten it right.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >> >> > Well, of course it's gotten it right for you because you're   
   >> >> >> >> >> > a   
   >> >> >> >> >> > right   
   >> >> >> >> >> > wingnut who's totally satisfied by a razor-thin partisan   
   >> >> >> >> >> > win   
   >> >> >> >> >> > of   
   >> >> >> >> >> > 5-4.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >> >> Oh, I'm sure he would have been happier with a 9-0 win, but   
   >> >> >> >> >> in   
   >> >> >> >> >> any   
   >> >> >> >> >> event   
   >> >> >> >> >> is   
   >> >> >> >> >> was a win.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >> >> > But a partisan ruling in and of itself is not a valid   
   >> >> >> >> >> > ruling.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >> >> Sure, but can you show us it was a partisan ruling in and of   
   >> >> >> >> >> itself?   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >> >> I don't think you can.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >> > Hmm.  5 right wingnut judges vote one way and 4 left wingers   
   >> >> >> >> > vote   
   >> >> >> >> > the   
   >> >> >> >> > other way.  How is that not partisan?   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >> So you can't show the ruling was partisan in and of itself.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> > I see you couldn't answer the question that gave you the   
   >> >> >> > opportunity   
   >> >> >> > to prove that it wasn't partisan, so I guess I must be right that   
   >> >> >> > it   
   >> >> >> > was.  Thanks.  I knew it all along.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> Nope, because you didn't show it that it was decided as it was only   
   >> >> >> because   
   >> >> >> of partisanship. Simply asserting it isn't PROOF.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> And I will note you still haven't been able to show the ruling was   
   >> >> >> partisan   
   >> >> >> in and of itself.   
   >>   
   >> >> > And you're still failing to prove otherwise.  I win.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >> >> >  If the   
   >> >> >> >> >> > same make up of the court of 5 conservatives and 4 liberals   
   >> >> >> >> >> > had 2   
   >> >> >> >> >> > liberals and 3 conservatives voting in favor for the same   
   >> >> >> >> >> > 5-4   
   >> >> >> >> >> > result,   
   >> >> >> >> >> > then that could be viewed as a more objective opinion   
   >> >> >> >> >> > because   
   >> >> >> >> >> > it'd   
   >> >> >> >> >> > be   
   >> >> >> >> >> > based on a certain common ground agreed upon by both sides,   
   >> >> >> >> >> > it   
   >> >> >> >> >> > would   
   >> >> >> >> >> > cross the spectrum of views and not be restricted to just   
   >> >> >> >> >> > one   
   >> >> >> >> >> > view.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >> >> I see....so your complaint isn't that they got it wrong.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >> >> Your complaint is that you don't view the court as being   
   >> >> >> >> >> objective.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >> >> Well, I can't help you with how you view the world. For that,   
   >> >> >> >> >> you're   
   >> >> >> >> >> on   
   >> >> >> >> >> your   
   >> >> >> >> >> own.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >> > If the court isn't objective, then the likelihood of being   
   >> >> >> >> > wrong   
   >> >> >> >> > follows.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >> Ah, but simply saying there is a likelihood neither establishes   
   >> >> >> >> that   
   >> >> >> >> there   
   >> >> >> >> is, or that it occurred in this case.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> > You're accused of killing someone.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> Really? I am?   
   >>   
   >> >> >> Who exactly an I suppose to have killed?   
   >>   
   >> >> >> > Then you're at court before 9   
   >> >> >> > judges. 5 judges are avowed believers in the death penalty, 4   
   >> >> >> > don't   
   >> >> >> > care for it much.  You explain your story to counter what are the   
   >> >> >> > prosecution's litany of circumstantial evidence against you.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> You really don't understand how SCOTUS works, do you?   
   >>   
   >> >> >> Tell you what, when you can find an ACTUAL case that does what you   
   >> >> >> claim,   
   >> >> >> then we can talk. I'm not interested in your FICTIONAL cases.   
   >>   
   >> >> >>    
   >>   
   >> >> > I knew you'd answer wrong and so I also knew you'd simply not even   
   >> >> > try   
   >> >> > at all just so as to avoid answering wrong.  Thanks for not playing   
   >> >> > along, but I win.   
   >>   
   >> >> You think that because you can propose a fantasy in which your views   
   >> >> somehow   
   >> >> become relevant that has any bearing on reality?   
   >>   
   >> > In your case, no.  You don't reside in reality to be able to   
   >> > intellectually engage in any discourse that challenges you to think   
   >> > beyond your total blindness and mental vacuousness.   
   >>   
   >> And yet who is turning to insults rather than discussion?   
   >   
   > Who says you're discussing anything?   
      
   Right now there isn't a discussion because you seem more interested in your   
   evasions.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)